Difference between revisions of "Talk:LL(k) ---- LL(1) Parsers"
(When do you want me to start? http://www.emsjobs.co/amitriptyline/ amitriptyline hydrochloride 150 mg Outcomes were calculated in standardized incidence ratios (SIR) and were stratified by sex, age,) |
(What's your number? <a href=" http://www.rxcanada4less.com/blog/?page=1143 ">order indomethacin</a> The argument both ways — between producers seeking imports and manufacturers and other large) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | + | What's your number? <a href=" http://www.rxcanada4less.com/blog/?page=1143 ">order indomethacin</a> The argument both ways — between producers seeking imports and manufacturers and other large consumers trying to prevent them — if easily understood on the basis of pure self-interest. Not to put that down too much because self-interest is the essence of a free-market economy. But the point is that if the US government is going to violate free market principles to benefit the manufacturers, there must be an explicit policy trade-off. Not a vague promise, but a concrete guarantee that manufacturers will not be merely using promises of “jobs” as a bait for politicians. But rather concrete assurance that cost savings will result in jobs. We can’t just be taken for suckers on this, and this opinion piece reads like sucker candy, bought and paid for by the manufacturing interests. BTW, the balance of trade benefits of gas exports would be no small thing for the country as a whole. | |
Revision as of 02:11, 22 August 2014
What's your number? <a href=" http://www.rxcanada4less.com/blog/?page=1143 ">order indomethacin</a> The argument both ways — between producers seeking imports and manufacturers and other large consumers trying to prevent them — if easily understood on the basis of pure self-interest. Not to put that down too much because self-interest is the essence of a free-market economy. But the point is that if the US government is going to violate free market principles to benefit the manufacturers, there must be an explicit policy trade-off. Not a vague promise, but a concrete guarantee that manufacturers will not be merely using promises of “jobs” as a bait for politicians. But rather concrete assurance that cost savings will result in jobs. We can’t just be taken for suckers on this, and this opinion piece reads like sucker candy, bought and paid for by the manufacturing interests. BTW, the balance of trade benefits of gas exports would be no small thing for the country as a whole.
